Yes.Dilbert_X wrote:
And they maintain a database open to all law-enforcement bodies?You buy a gun, fill out the paperwork and it's registered with the ATF.
Permanently ban creation of a centralized electronic index of out of business dealers’ records—a threat to gun owners’ privacy that Congress has barred through appropriations riders for more than a decade.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-05-03 21:48:48)
Expand. Also, please explain how it differs from the mission that ICE has.13/f/taiwan wrote:
The bill is really fucked up. You guys need to get a better understanding of the effects it will have in the long run.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta … on_ServiceShortly after the U.S. Civil War, some states started to pass their own immigration laws, which prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in 1875 that immigration was a federal responsibility. The Immigration Act of 1891[citation needed] established an Office of the Superintendent of Immigration within the Treasury Department. This office was responsible for admitting, rejecting, and processing all immigrants seeking admission to the United States and for implementing national immigration policy. 'Immigrant Inspectors', as they were called then, were stationed at major U.S. ports of entry collecting manifests of arriving passengers. Its largest station was located on Ellis Island in New York harbor.
no. i'm worried about new ways of harassing illegals given to those who are likely to harass illegals.Kmarion wrote:
Wait, you're worried about illegals being harassed by asking for papers?
oh, shit... this must be language problem, or... i dunno. anyway, by "can't" i didn't mean "can't under the law", i ment "practically can't", because, being illegals, for them getting this issue to the court would be like shooting themselves in the foot. they have already broken your laws by illegally entering your country, by illegally working there, by paying no taxes and so on and so forth. they are only interested in being able to keep living that way. why the hell would they bring it to the court and risk getting kicked out of the country just to enter which they spent a lot of time and effort? because it's "fair"? don't make me laugh.Kmarion wrote:
Are you ready to admit that you were wrong about their ability to prosecute? Remember, you said they can't.
i'm not making any assumptions. the easier your law is to abuse - the more it gets abused, and the more laws like this you have - the sooner your country will become as corrupt as mine.Turquoise wrote:
I think Shahter is making the faulty assumption that our country is as corrupt as his is.
thats what makes this country so great.FEOS wrote:
But this isn't really a States' rights issue. Arizona isn't establishing new immigration law requirements. All they are doing is enforcing existing Federal immigration laws. So it doesn't subvert the Federal roles and responsibilities, as is claimed by the Administration and activists, nor does it introduce new immigration requirements. All it does is enforce existing statutes. Period.
The first time a US citizen gets arrested on suspicion for being illegal because they didn't produce their ID--and don't think the ACLU and others won't have plants to do just that--there will be a legal challenge to the Constitutionality of the law. Then we'll see how it all works out.
